Share this story

Trucks have been no more immune than cars when it comes to suffering from automotive bloat. The F-150 of today is a beast of a thing compared to the ones I rode around in at the turn of the century, and that's the smallest truck Ford will sell us here in the US. Life is better for the small truck fan living in Australia. For whatever reason, the small truck never died out in the Antipodes, and Ford's Asia Pacific region will still sell you the Ranger, albeit one that's still bigger than any Ranger we remember.

While I'm not the biggest truck afficionado, I bring this up because Ford does in fact plan to bring the Ranger back to these shores (along with cult favorite Bronco), and when it does, it needs to make sure that it includes the Ranger Raptor. The truck people reading this will probably not require any further explanation. For everyone else, imagine a Focus RS, but it's a truck, and it's for driving in the desert. That's certainly my take-home from the video teaser that Ford just put out:

The Ranger Raptor is due out next year—if you live down under. The US won't get any Rangers at all until 2019, so we have no idea whether this spicy version will ever be seen with the steering wheel on the left. Somehow I imagine Ford is going to get a few phone calls today saying it needs to do just that.

Promoted Comments

Fuel economy isn't the problem. It's their physical size / weight. You can't fit/drive a corrado where you can an S10.

Yep, the CAFE standards have affected vehicle size. He didn't read the link so I'll post the pertinent bits here:

In 2006, CAFE altered the formula for its 2011 fuel economy targets, by calculating a vehicle’s “footprint”, which is the vehicle’s wheelbase multiplied by its wheel track. The footprint is expressed in square feet, and calculating this value is probably the most transparent part of the regulations. Fuel economy targets are a function of a vehicle’s footprint; the smaller the footprint, the tougher the standards are.

Unfortunately, the footprint method has the opposite effect; rather than encouraging auto makers to strive for unprecedented fuel economy in their passenger car offerings, it has incentivized auto makers to build larger cars, in particular, more car-based crossovers that can be classified as “trucks” as used to skew fleet average figures, much the same way the PT Cruiser did. Full-size trucks have become a “protected class”, safe from the most aggressive targets, while compact trucks have become nearly extinct as a result.

CAFE’s other victim is the compact truck segment. Many consumers don’t need a full-size truck (whether they acknowledge it or not), and the Ford Ranger, along with GM’s own compact pickups, had respectable followings among consumers looking for a smaller fuel-efficient pickup.

But the Ranger happens to fall into the “dead zone” of the CAFE footprint formula. Both curve graphs show a flat line at 55 square feet; in practical terms, a Mercedes-Benz S-Class carries this footprint. The Ranger, even in SuperCab configuration, has a footprint of 50 square feet, just short of the magic number. The best Ranger, fuel economy-wise, was a 4-cylinder manual truck, returning 22/27 mpg IRL; a respectable number, but one only available in a configuration that a minority of buyers would opt for. Equipped with a V6 and an automatic transmission, it would only return 14/18 mpg IRL, a figure that can be equalled by certain version of Ford’s V6 and V8 F-150 full-size pickups. By 2025, a theoretical Ranger with a footprint of 50 square feet would have to achieve fuel economy somewhere approaching 50 mpg CAFE. The 75 square foot F-150 would only have to reach in the high 30s CAFE.

I'd rather they put their efforts into selling a pickup that isn't so ridiculously fuckhuge and has a reasonable bed level so I can load shit in the back without doing a god damn power clean. I feel like if I got one nowadays I'd need to take it to a Hispanic body shop just to put it in the realm of reasonable.

I sold my '96 Ranger several years ago and still regret it. It's not often I need that open bed, but when I do I really miss it.

I don't want a full-size truck - I don't have the space for it, and I don't like driving anything that big. The Ranger was pretty perfect for my needs, and worked well as a daily driver for a long time.

I sold my '96 Ranger several years ago and still regret it. It's not often I need that open bed, but when I do I really miss it.

I don't want a full-size truck - I don't have the space for it, and I don't like driving anything that big. The Ranger was pretty perfect for my needs, and worked well as a daily driver for a long time.

It's the only Ford product I'd ever consider buying again.

I have an 01 Ranger that Picked up SUPER cheap. Perfect body condition, trans rebuilt, great tires, $800.00 USD. Apparently the guy who owned it drove it through a deep puddle at speed, sucked water into the engine, hydrolocked it and blew a rod through the side of the block.

$450.00 for a used 2.5L engine and 5 days later and it's been a very reliable and fun truck to drive. I should have picked up a 2.3L Turbo coupe / SVO motor for it. That would have been an utter blast to have. Still - I can't complain. Awesome little truck.

Fuel economy isn't the problem. It's their physical size / weight. You can't fit/drive a corrado where you can an S10.

Yep, the CAFE standards have affected vehicle size. He didn't read the link so I'll post the pertinent bits here:

In 2006, CAFE altered the formula for its 2011 fuel economy targets, by calculating a vehicle’s “footprint”, which is the vehicle’s wheelbase multiplied by its wheel track. The footprint is expressed in square feet, and calculating this value is probably the most transparent part of the regulations. Fuel economy targets are a function of a vehicle’s footprint; the smaller the footprint, the tougher the standards are.

Unfortunately, the footprint method has the opposite effect; rather than encouraging auto makers to strive for unprecedented fuel economy in their passenger car offerings, it has incentivized auto makers to build larger cars, in particular, more car-based crossovers that can be classified as “trucks” as used to skew fleet average figures, much the same way the PT Cruiser did. Full-size trucks have become a “protected class”, safe from the most aggressive targets, while compact trucks have become nearly extinct as a result.

CAFE’s other victim is the compact truck segment. Many consumers don’t need a full-size truck (whether they acknowledge it or not), and the Ford Ranger, along with GM’s own compact pickups, had respectable followings among consumers looking for a smaller fuel-efficient pickup.

But the Ranger happens to fall into the “dead zone” of the CAFE footprint formula. Both curve graphs show a flat line at 55 square feet; in practical terms, a Mercedes-Benz S-Class carries this footprint. The Ranger, even in SuperCab configuration, has a footprint of 50 square feet, just short of the magic number. The best Ranger, fuel economy-wise, was a 4-cylinder manual truck, returning 22/27 mpg IRL; a respectable number, but one only available in a configuration that a minority of buyers would opt for. Equipped with a V6 and an automatic transmission, it would only return 14/18 mpg IRL, a figure that can be equalled by certain version of Ford’s V6 and V8 F-150 full-size pickups. By 2025, a theoretical Ranger with a footprint of 50 square feet would have to achieve fuel economy somewhere approaching 50 mpg CAFE. The 75 square foot F-150 would only have to reach in the high 30s CAFE.

There's not a meaningful fuel economy difference between a true compact truck like the old Ranger and S-10 and a midsize truck like the current Tacoma and Colorado.

Wonder if Ford is targeting the "mid sized" truck market with the new (bloated) Ranger.

My perception is that recent truck sizing has taken the lead from McDonalds, with everything "super-sized", as the Chevy Colorado of today looks very similar to Chevy's full-size pickup from 20 years ago (but with better engine performance from the new midsize trucks as compared to the rediculously anemic 5.7L V8s of the 90's.)

Wonder if Ford is targeting the "mid sized" truck market with the new (bloated) Ranger.

My perception is that recent truck sizing has taken the lead from McDonalds, with everything "super-sized", as the Chevy Colorado of today looks very similar to Chevy's full-size pickup from 20 years ago (but with better engine performance from the new midsize trucks as compared to the rediculously anemic 5.7L V8s of the 90's.)

There's not a meaningful fuel economy difference between a true compact truck like the old Ranger and S-10 and a midsize truck like the current Tacoma and Colorado.

Fuel economy isn't the problem. It's their physical size / weight. You can't fit/drive a corrado where you can an S10.

And that's a fair complaint, even though most buyers prefer the interior space of a midsize. But I just hate the TTAC "it's all the guvmint regulators' fault!!!11" tone for an issue that's really an issue of customer preference and the silent majority outvoting a vocal minority with their purchasing dollars. It's the same issue with manual transmissions versus slushboxes and CVTs, RWD versus FWD, etc.

Wonder if Ford is targeting the "mid sized" truck market with the new (bloated) Ranger.

My perception is that recent truck sizing has taken the lead from McDonalds, with everything "super-sized", as the Chevy Colorado of today looks very similar to Chevy's full-size pickup from 20 years ago (but with better engine performance from the new midsize trucks as compared to the rediculously anemic 5.7L V8s of the 90's.)

Everything is getting bigger. My Civic has more space than Accords did when I was younger. The RAV4 is twice the size it used to be and it's always been a car-based crossover. Can't blame that on CAFE...why isn't the same true with trucks?

The best Ranger, fuel economy-wise, was a 4-cylinder manual truck, returning 22/27 mpg IRL; a respectable number, but one only available in a configuration that a minority of buyers would opt for.

That's the configuration I had - a bit underpowered (had to drop to 3rd to go up a hill whether I was hauling anything or not), but good enough mileage to serve as a daily driver, at least in the late '90s/early '00s.

Interesting point about CAFE standards driving increase in vehicle size - that's something I never would have considered, but it makes perfect sense. Law of unintended consequences strikes again.

I don't want a full-size truck - I don't have the space for it, and I don't like driving anything that big. The Ranger was pretty perfect for my needs, and worked well as a daily driver for a long time.

I have a Sammy. Possibly the best 4x4 ever built and I can use the quad trails. Some education is in order.

The various lessors, owners etc, are the problem us backroads guys have. In my part of the world the logging companies try to keep us off their leases. It's my mountain dammit! Anyhoo the first guys to create a work around are the quad guys and my Sammy fits their silly trails.

I had a '96 extended cab Ranger. Probably the worst vehicle I ever had. It had the V6 and was still very underpowered, had bad gas mileage for its size and weight, endless electrical system problems, 1st brakes wore out at 15,000 miles, but not covered under warranty because they are a wear item, clutch wore out around 85000 miles, and, as a bonus the worst handling in rain or snow - the only vehicle in 45 years of driving I have ever spun out with. I grew up on a farm driving pickups, so this was not my 1st pickup experience. I do not miss that vehicle in any way, would never consider another one.

There's not a meaningful fuel economy difference between a true compact truck like the old Ranger and S-10 and a midsize truck like the current Tacoma and Colorado.

Fuel economy isn't the problem. It's their physical size / weight. You can't fit/drive a corrado where you can an S10.

And that's a fair complaint, even though most buyers prefer the interior space of a midsize. But I just hate the TTAC "it's all the guvmint regulators' fault!!!11" tone for an issue that's really an issue of customer preference and the silent majority outvoting a vocal minority with their purchasing dollars. It's the same issue with manual transmissions versus slushboxes and CVTs, RWD versus FWD, etc.

Not all "da gubment" but a lot of the fault for vehicles in general getting porky is their fault. Regulations for making a car "safe against an impact from an SUV" raised door lines. (Instead of limiting truck /suv bumper height.) And the regulations requiring a vehicles roof to he able to withstand a rollover without the hood crumpling lead to weight gain and raised the CG of all vehicles.

As for the other argument... F CVTs. They wear out quickly. I've seen many CVT equipped vehicles go in for a repair that ended up getting the car sold and another bought because of the cost. These were friends, co workers and family members all lured in with the promise of better MPG. I think the longest lasting one was 95k give or take. Still way too soon for a modern vehicle to need what amounted to a rebuild.

I have to say I'm impressed with the Raptor. I'm not a Ford guy, but anything that consistently commands such astronomical prices (new and used) for capabilities that virtually no owners will ever use much less need is truly amazing.

There's not a meaningful fuel economy difference between a true compact truck like the old Ranger and S-10 and a midsize truck like the current Tacoma and Colorado.

Fuel economy isn't the problem. It's their physical size / weight. You can't fit/drive a corrado where you can an S10.

And that's a fair complaint, even though most buyers prefer the interior space of a midsize. But I just hate the TTAC "it's all the guvmint regulators' fault!!!11" tone for an issue that's really an issue of customer preference and the silent majority outvoting a vocal minority with their purchasing dollars. It's the same issue with manual transmissions versus slushboxes and CVTs, RWD versus FWD, etc.

Not all "da gubment" but a lot of the fault for vehicles in general getting porky is their fault. Regulations for making a car "safe against an impact from an SUV" raised door lines. (Instead of limiting truck /suv bumper height.) And the regulations requiring a vehicles roof to he able to withstand a rollover without the hood crumpling lead to weight gain and raised the CG of all vehicles.

As for the other argument... F CVTs. They wear out quickly. I've seen many CVT equipped vehicles go in for a repair that ended up getting the car sold and another bought because of the cost. These were friends, co workers and family members all lured in with the promise of better MPG. I think the longest lasting one was 95k give or take. Still way too soon for a modern vehicle to need what amounted to a rebuild.

CVTs are fucking garbage. I have the last Forester that came with the 4EAT designed in 1988, and it will probably last 250K+ without major issues. My mom got the 2015 Forester and the CVT is already shifting weirdly and making discomforting noises.

I have a 4cyl 98. It's rusty and crusty, 200k+ miles, looks like hell, but runs great. The old Ranger is the right size, not this new beast. It blows my mind when I see some massive 4-door 4wd pickup that has a bed the same size or smaller than my Ranger. Oh well, I'll keep driving it, until I can't.

I have a 4cyl 98. It's rusty and crusty, 200k+ miles, looks like hell, but runs great. The old Ranger is the right size, not this new beast. It blows my mind when I see some massive 4-door 4wd pickup that has a bed the same size or smaller than my Ranger. Oh well, I'll keep driving it, until I can't.

I parked my PN150 (North American) Ranger supercab next to a 2016 P375 (global) Ranger Wildtrak crew cab. The new Ranger was about a couple of inches longer and hardly any wider. The big difference was in height; the P375 is about 8-10" taller. Most of that comes from the fact that its ride height is higher.

The global Ranger just looks big because it's taller, the bed sides/door sills are higher, and the most popular body style is the crew cab which the PN150 Ranger was never offered in. The closest we had to a crew cab Ranger was the Explorer Sport Trac.

edited to add:

So 2" longer wheelbase (largely due to the crew cab body) a few more inches OAL (greater overhangs.)

This looks great. I will be in the market for a "small" (that is, large, but built for humans less than 10 feet tall) truck, but Tacomas are impossible to find.

But, there's a factor that keeps putting me off: 4 doors & short bed. 4 doors is important, since what's the point of pulling the boat/camper/bikes/whatever if you can't carry the people who use it.But, a short bed is useless. If I can't put 8-ft lumber in it when doing projects, it's a waste.

I'd rather have the whole back fully enclosed, with fold-down seats for hauling long items.

OK, so you think "dummy, that's an SUV", but no. I'm not looking for third-row seats and an entertainment center. The back should still be durable bedliner, with tie-downs and no plastic pillar coverings to break when you are throwing lumber in the back. It's just that the roof goes all the way back, without a stupid barrier behind the seats.

This is how the old 1970s and 1980s Broncos were made, and it is a really convenient layout (not accounting for the old crappy bench seats, etc) It just needs to be updated to the 21st century.

This looks great. I will be in the market for a "small" (that is, large, but built for humans less than 10 feet tall) truck, but Tacomas are impossible to find.

But, there's a factor that keeps putting me off: 4 doors & short bed. 4 doors is important, since what's the point of pulling the boat/camper/bikes/whatever if you can't carry the people who use it.But, a short bed is useless. If I can't put 8-ft lumber in it when doing projects, it's a waste.

I'd rather have the whole back fully enclosed, with fold-down seats for hauling long items.

OK, so you think "dummy, that's an SUV", but no. I'm not looking for third-row seats and an entertainment center. The back should still be durable bedliner, with tie-downs and no plastic pillar coverings to break when you are throwing lumber in the back. It's just that the roof goes all the way back, without a stupid barrier behind the seats.

This is how the old 1970s and 1980s Broncos were made, and it is a really convenient layout (not accounting for the old crappy bench seats, etc) It just needs to be updated to the 21st century.

I love my 2005 Tacoma, even though its mileage sucks compared to more modern engines...

My first car was a 95 Ranger with that weak-ass little inline 4. Not fast. Not 4-wheel drive. Questionable interior build quality. HOWEVER. It was nigh invulnerable. My younger stepbrother has it now, and it's approaching 300K miles. It's survived years of a brutally uphill daily commute, followed by TWO 18-24 boys driving it around the desert like maniacs and not taking proper care of it, and the only major work it's ever needed was a new clutch at around 100K miles.

Now that I'm an adult who commutes by motorcycle and need not concern myself too much with my weekend adventure-mobile's gas mileage, my 4-wheeled vehicle is a much more awesome Ranger. A couple years ago I picked up a 2003 with the peak off-road package of its time (FX4 Level II). Still not especially fast. Not especially good gas mileage. BUT. Outstanding 4wd (. Highly adequate torque. 31" tires. Full skid factory skid plates. Flat-out ridiculous towing capacity for its size. Hopefully also nigh-invulnerable. So far it seems just as bulletproof as my old Ranger, but with the added bonus of being actually fun to drive.

I love my 2003 Ranger. I'm going to drive it until the wheels fall off. If it lasts 300K miles like my old 95 did ... with me driving it as little as I do it might be the last truck I ever own (and I'm only 31).

Although if I had a little more disposable income I admit I'd probably be sorely tempted by a brand new Raptor Ranger.

I'd rather they put their efforts into selling a pickup that isn't so ridiculously fuckhuge and has a reasonable bed level so I can load shit in the back without doing a god damn power clean. I feel like if I got one nowadays I'd need to take it to a Hispanic body shop just to put it in the realm of reasonable.

Fuel economy isn't the problem. It's their physical size / weight. You can't fit/drive a corrado where you can an S10.

Yep, the CAFE standards have affected vehicle size. He didn't read the link so I'll post the pertinent bits here:

It's not that I didn't read it. I've seen that article before. I agree with the article that CAFE creates, on paper, some degree of disincentive for a certain size truck. What I disagree with is that that disincentive, instead of other market forces, is the predominant reason why small trucks have disappeared from the market. I disagree with that conclusion because:

(1) American consumers really, really, really like interior space. We've seen it repeatedly in every single auto segment. Anyone who sells cars for a living knows that interior spaciousness is a selling point.

(2). Compact trucks are not more fuel efficient than midsizers. A modern Colorado 4x2 gets basically exactly the same fuel economy as the old Ranger 4x2, despite being much more powerful and much roomier.

(3) Compact trucks are not cheaper than midsizers. At least not when built to the same safety standards.

(4) Most American truck buyers, when offered the choice between a $20k compact truck and $20k midsize truck that offer the same fuel economy, are gonna buy the midsizers. The vast majority. People who want the compact truck to maneuver up fire roads have valid desires, but they're a statistical minority of buyers by a wide margin. And so the companies are going to cater to the majority of buyers.

Again, it's not that I disagree with what CAFE says. It's that I don't think it's the driving force. For example, if the federal government said you couldn't hunt grizzly bears with a Bowie knife without at $200 permit, and nobody chose to hunt grizzly bears with a Bowie knife in 2018, I think an article blaming the lack of bear-knife-hunting primarily on that $200 fee would be wrong, even though the fee exists. There's other reasons driving people away from bear-knife-hunting (like a desire to not die).

This looks great. I will be in the market for a "small" (that is, large, but built for humans less than 10 feet tall) truck, but Tacomas are impossible to find.

But, there's a factor that keeps putting me off: 4 doors & short bed. 4 doors is important, since what's the point of pulling the boat/camper/bikes/whatever if you can't carry the people who use it.But, a short bed is useless. If I can't put 8-ft lumber in it when doing projects, it's a waste.

I'd rather have the whole back fully enclosed, with fold-down seats for hauling long items.

OK, so you think "dummy, that's an SUV", but no. I'm not looking for third-row seats and an entertainment center. The back should still be durable bedliner, with tie-downs and no plastic pillar coverings to break when you are throwing lumber in the back. It's just that the roof goes all the way back, without a stupid barrier behind the seats.

This is how the old 1970s and 1980s Broncos were made, and it is a really convenient layout (not accounting for the old crappy bench seats, etc) It just needs to be updated to the 21st century.

I would do terrible things for a modern vehicle built on the old Bronco paradigm. Fully enclosed is OK, but I'd love to see the removable rear hard top come back too. While we're at it, I'd also love the entire interior waterproof to the point you could just pressure-wash the inside to clean it.

Wouldn't take much to get them in compliance for everything but pedestrian safety. Higher door sills. Heavier pillars to support the vehicle in a rollover. It'd still weigh under 3000lbs and have a sub 9' length. Kais are great little vehicles and are the gold standard for "appliance on wheels". Beating out the Toyota Corolla for that title.

To Mitlov's point, smaller trucks started disappearing before the new CAFE "footprint" rules were implemented. The Dakota was gone by 2011 (nevermind that it was one which actually did get too big) and the PN150 Ranger had been on life support since at least 2006. Seriously, pretty much every year after that there were "will they kill it or not" rumors.

Also, the real, #1 reason small pickups disappeared while full-sizers took over is because:

- Gas is (still) incredibly cheap in the US, and- CAFE punishes the manufacturers, consumers don't have to worry about it.

Wouldn't take much to get them in compliance for everything but pedestrian safety. Higher door sills. Heavier pillars to support the vehicle in a rollover. It'd still weigh under 3000lbs and have a sub 9' length. Kais are great little vehicles and are the gold standard for "appliance on wheels". Beating out the Toyota Corolla for that title.

Quote:

But there's an exception: 21 states allow kei trucks (also known as "mini-trucks") of any age to be imported as off-road vehicles and registered as ATVs,